Uranium and plutonium are toxic, but botox is more toxic and people inject themselves with it on purpose to have less wrinkles. Caffeine is more toxic as well, but people drink it in large amounts. Google the LD50 levels if you do not believe me.
In other words, it's toxic, like I said. Additionally, comparing it to botulinum toxin and caffeine are disingenuous. Botox is delivered in small doses, and it does paralyze muscles and will eventually lead to permanent paralysis. And Caffeine is taken in extremely small doses. Less than a tablespoon will kill you.
Radioactive materials with long half-lives are not necessarily more dangerous.
I never said they were. What I said is that they take a long, long time to become safe.
Nuclear reactors do not explode like a weapon.
I never said they did. In fact, my exact words where:
"Not a nuclear bomb explosion, but a violent explosion that bathes anyone nearby with lethal doses of radiation."
Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. The meltdown caused steam explosions as pipe pressure went up and the graphite ignited.
Quoting myself again:
"Temperature also must be diligently controlled, as these reactors create a *lot* of heat (deliberately, as that's how they operate). If the flow of coolant (water) is blocked before the reactor is shut down, fire and explosion are possible (c.f. Chernobyl)."
Depending on reactor design, a nuclear reactor will not have a rampant (positive feedback loop) meltdown if coolant escapes the core.
Interesting, but unclear. If a power plant of the type used in the US were to remain online (i.e., the rods all in place) with zero coolant flow (by coolant, I'm referring to the water that is turned into steam, just in case there's also some auxiliary system that is called coolant in such a system) the heat does not build up causing either a fire or an explosion? I mean, without any safety mechanism being triggered, such as rods being removed or lead shielding put in place between them?
If so, the question arises how such a system could work, unless the reactors don't turn water into steam to run turbines. Otherwise, it would seem the system would become an oven, resulting in fire and/or explosion.
A nuclear power plant has a high EROEI ratio. Especially when the uranium is enriched using now commonplace gas centrifuge technology. Estimated energy payback period is between 3 and 5 months. Not years, let alone decades.
They stated that their method is to convert money into energy as a way of determining energy cost. They didn't detail their method, stating that it was from a third party, and it's very common to get this wrong.
But really, there are two matters to consider (neither of which does that report actually address):
1. Energy deficit. Counting every joule of energy that goes into a nuclear plant, including mining of materials (not just fuel), transportation, construction, personnel, etc., how long will it take before the plant produces its first net joule of energy? 2. Monetary deficit. Ironically, while they did address money by converting it into energy, they didn't go into this directly. What I mean by this is, taking the dollars that go into it, how long does it take before the price per watt is equal to or less than the price per watt of coal, hydro or even things like wind and solar.
They do touch on efficiency, and show that nuclear isn't actually more efficient than other systems. Additionally, things like solar are improving by the year.
As I already stated, I'm not against nuclear. On the contrary. What I'm against is doing it poorly. I *KNOW* it can be done right. The problem is, you cannot assume it will be done 100% right. You have to assume a significant amount of things being done poorly, or just not-so-bad. In such a situatio
Apple is in complete control of this situation. They control who gets the contracts to build the goods.
No, they aren't. There are two specific ways in which they aren't.
1. They cannot, I repeat, CAN NOT, control third parties. They can make demands and threats, but they can not control them.
2. They can only choose from available third parties. If they cancel a contract with everyone who violates some rule, and everyone violates some rule, they can not build their product. Alternatively, if they find someone who does not break this rule, but costs significantly more than someone who does, they can make their product, but cannot sell it.
It's all about the profits, and how to maximize them most efficiently. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, it's not. If it was just about profits, they wouldn't have a code of conduct at all.
Every business in existence is run by humans. Humans are not purely rational beings. The idea that we are, and thus always seek to maximize profits also implies that profits are always rational. Now that's *two* flaws with your assertion about profits.
So, these people make choices. *Some* choices are about maximizing profits. *Some* choices are about making the product they wish to see exist. *Some* choices are based on the morals and politics of the people involved. *Some* choices are based on nothing other than whim. *Some* choices are based on the idea of staying out of jail, or being able to sleep at night, or not having your family hate you, etc.
In other words, the notion that all choices are based on profits is absurd.
Yeah, anything that has to do with fluctuating prices, Apple tends to just pick a set price and stay with it for a while before updating it. Foreign stores, RAM and HD add-ons, and models that haven't been updated for a while, are all affected by this.
On the topic of RGBLED, Apple's LED gets 90% gamut coverage (vs. the 45%-75% gamut of other technologies). I assume the Dell RGBLED is closer to, if not actually at, 100%. I just wanted to point out that Apple's LED backlighting is better than what a lot of people might be thinking when comparing with other white LEDs.
Nuclear is now safe. See Japan and France for more information.
Nuclear is *never* safe. What it is, now, is manageable, which is a different thing.
What I mean by this is that uranium, plutonium, thorium, etc., are all radioactive with half-lives of thousands to billions of years. No matter *what* you do, those elements are unsafe in any amount useful for a power plant. Uranium and plutonium are also toxic metals.
There is also the issue that if the rods get too close to each other, they reach critical mass and explode. Not a nuclear bomb explosion, but a violent explosion that bathes anyone nearby with lethal doses of radiation. Temperature also must be diligently controlled, as these reactors create a *lot* of heat (deliberately, as that's how they operate). If the flow of coolant (water) is blocked before the reactor is shut down, fire and explosion are possible (c.f. Chernobyl).
While the explosion is not on the order of even a Hiroshima sized bomb, the radiation fallout is actually greater.
Then there's the problem of waste. Nuclear waste is not only toxic, but remains radioactive for tens of billions of years. So you have to plan for *that* as well.
So, while these issues *are* all manageable, you have to really, really take caution and responsibility to minimize the risks. The first thing you have to accept is any one of those potential disasters can come to pass. There's absolutely *no* way to completely eliminate them, and it has to be assumed that anything that can go wrong, eventually will go wrong. So this becomes a risk-benefit analysis. One which I believe favors nuclear power.
But in order to be done right, I can't trust private businesses. Not without *severe* government oversight. This is because profit-seeking businesses can all but universally be relied on to to cut corners to save on costs. At least, this is true for American-style business.
Finally, in terms of net-positive energy production and cost savings, in order to run a power plant safely, it will take decades before a nuclear plant generates more energy than it took to produce and maintain it. So one would have to have confidence that the plant will still be around by then, otherwise it has become both an energy and a money sink.
I'm *not* against nuclear power. I *very much* like the idea of it. But what I'm not convinced of is our ability (at least in terms of for-profit businesses) to do it safely.
It's amazing that the mainstream public can be this economically retarded
Hmm, I'll say. But I don't think we're talking about the same group of people...
but it isn't very surprising given that their education is controlled by the government
Tinfoil hat time, here we go!
the very entity that benefits from these sorts of regulations.
The government benefits every time a child doesn't work, every time a pill doesn't kill someone, every time a student becomes a doctor or a scientist, every time a factory recalls tons of e. coli tainted beef... Well, in a sense, that's actually true, in the US, since We The People *are* the government.
Individuals, including children, choose to work in "sweatshops"
Bullshit. No child "choses" to work in a sweatshop. They are forced to by their parents, or by circumstances, but in no way do they think, "boy, I sure wish I could work 15 hours a day and get 2 pee breaks!"
Simply outlawing free market in labor will not make schools, hospitals, and personal wealth rain from the sky!
No. "Socialism" does this. The free market has never, and will never, provide schools, hospitals and personal wealth to reach the masses. A truly free market school system would leave the poor uneducated. A truly free market health system would leave the poor sick.
As for child labor, no free market on the planet would *ever* eliminate it. The only way to eliminate child labor is to outlaw it outright. This is because if it's legal, some company is going to engage in it, and some children are going to be forced by their parents or by circumstances into it.
Free market economies are able to go from child labor and sweatshops to banks and skyscrapers in just a couple of generations, while the "well-intentioned" socialist cesspools remain poor except for the handouts of others (often too through government force).
No free market has ever left child labor behind. You *are* correct that free markets will lead to banks and skyscrapers, however. You are wrong that socialism leads to poor nations. What you are thinking of is communism.
The trick is to gain the benefits of capitalism (banks, skyscrapers, etc.) while avoiding its negatives (exclusion of poor people, child labor, etc.). The way to do that is with laws (outlawing certain practices) and socialism (free education and health care) *AND* capitalism (skyscrapers and banks).
You do realize that they did nothing to these suppliers?
Wrong.
Do you also realize that Dick Durbin is all over them about this right now, hence the audit?
Them, and 29 other high profile companies.
It has been almost 4 years since they started this 'code of conduct' BS.
Wait, I thought you said they just started this right now in response to Durbin?
Yet the violations continue..... think about that for a minute.
Of course they do. It's China. But they don't continue with Apple's consent. It's like saying, "there are laws against murder, yet murders still continue... think about that for a minute."
They audit, it gets Durbin off of them.. he is happy.
Again, they've been at this for four years. It's very clever of them to have allocated precious resources to their time machine to go back to 2006 and start this process, all to appease one Senator.
Business goes on as usual.... what has Apple actually DONE here but make some baseless threats, the same ones they made back in 2006.
You're absolutely correct. A Code of Conduct is an unassailable mechanism that instantly forces all who are subject to it into compliance. It's truly magical that way.
Here's the thing. This Code of Conduct applies to other companies. Sure they may agree to it, but that doesn't mean they are going to follow it. That's why Apple audits them, and takes action as necessary. But don't forget, this are independent third parties, who operate in a different nation with a different culture than Apple's, and are not going to change their standard practices just on someone else's say so. It's going to have to harm them financially (or legally, but in China, we can pretty much ignore that aspect regarding the current topic). Apple can only do so much, and what they *can* do, they are doing *something*, which is far more than can be said for their competitors.
It's ironic that Apple is being taken to task for doing the right thing and looking into the human rights practices of their suppliers, instead of turning a blind eye like everyone else. It's like blaming a doctor for finding cancer, because he actually performs the tests, and giving the doctors who don't a pass...
except you know, they dont charge any more than anyone else. There IS NO APPLE TAX anymore. Stop comparing POS computers to a standard Apple configuration and actually you know configure a Dell to match a Apple. You WILL be surprised.
And you *still* won't get the Dell to match the Mac in terms of screen quality, battery life, thinness, sturdiness, etc.
But I guess those things are simply the "aesthetics" and "form over function" that people keep trying to pretend are unimportant or something...
This is just incredible. I tried to do the price comparisons, and each time Apple comes as the looser. The only space of time when it's Apple's products are equally priced are right at the product launch. But there is no way to compare Apples to Dells in 1-to-1 way. There are very specific differences.
If you take a standard config Mac, then build a similar PC (as close as possible, including features you may not want, like FireWire and Bluetooth) and also make certain that the components are of similar quality (such as IPS LED displays on the iMac, and the high gamut, good viewing angle of the MacBook Pros), then you will find that the Mac is usually around the same, and sometimes cheaper.
You are correct that the prices drift over time, but I've never said this isn't the case. Apple updates their products more cyclically, while PC makers have various models which are all changing almost stochastically. I've already also stated that if choice is your thing, or if you just really don't want the feature sets that Apple offers, then get a PC. There's nothing wrong with buying the thing that best suits your needs and wants.
For the price of a 13" MacBook you can get an quad-core i7 system with 15" display, dedicated graphics, more ram and more disk space at a price that is $100 less.
Four things (which I've already stated):
1. The MacBook Pro is pending a refresh to Core i7. Now is a time where the prices/features diverge the greatest. 2. It's not likely that the components like the quality of the screen, build of the case, time on battery power, etc., match that of the MacBook Pro. 3. If you create a build based on upgraded HD and RAM on the MBP, you will have a greater divergence in prices. 4. I said "generally". There will *always* be cases where some other PC will be cheaper than a similar Mac, and vice versa. My point isn't that Macs are always cheaper or anything, just that their prices are very much similar to equivalent PCs.
The idea that Macs are overpriced are based on two misconceptions.
1. Apple doesn't sell low-end computers. There are no $300 Macs. This isn't because the Mac mini is just a $300 PC priced at $600. It's because Apple doesn't sell a Mac with the crappy parts of the $300 PC. 2. DIYers can cherry pick components and build a PC for less. This actually ignores things like size and sound. Also, there are some Macs that can't even be built for less than Apple sells them for. For example, for a Mac Pro, by the time you buy the processors, you barely have a few hundred dollars left for RAM, case, MB, HD, video, etc.
"slower to reality" - what the....?!?!?!?!?!
I already corrected this, thinking one word and typing another. I suspect you are intelligent enough to deduce what I was thinking.
You mention that somehow free is open. Free isn't open. Free means you don't pay. Open means you can tinker with it.
Open has many meanings. It also means it's open for anyone to use. Since *I* used the word open, you can't say that *my* choice in meaning is wrong if it's valid (and not just technically, but obscurely, but in a common use of the word).
But like I pointed out, it doesn't matter what word you want to use for it, the specific feature I was pointing out is the thing that differentiates it from Memory Stick.
I mentioned that the Alienwares comparison was using an i7, you keep mis-reading it as an i3 to divert attention.
No, your link didn't bring me to the build you mentioned. I looked at it and saw Core i3 selected. It wasn't meant to be a diversion, and it doesn't change the fact that the discrepancy is highly affected by the fact that the MBP hasn't yet been updated to Core i5's and i7's. They will come. And I've never shied away from the fact that there are times that the build is going to be a few months behind the cutting edge.
Which brings me back to my original point, which is that Apple is *by no means* on the trailing edge.
You wanted to compare the Core2, even though it was pointed out that Apple sells a Core2Duo.
Apple sells Core2Quads, Core2Duos, Core i5's, Core i7's, and Xeons. But my point wasn't that MacBooks use them (they will, so it's just a temporal issue, not a technological issue), my point was to point out that just being a Core i3 or i5 doesn't mean it's automatically faster than the Core2 series. This is when I thought you were saying the Core i3 Alienware was faster than the MBP. It may be, but not by much.
But look at that list of processors I mentioned that Apple uses. Which of those are on the trailing edge of technology? Trailing edge is Pentiums, Celerons, Atoms, CoreDuo, most AMDs, and a handful of other, even slower, processors.
You ask " if there's anything specific you'd like me to clarify, or cite for you, do ask" Ok. In simple, 5 year old understandable english. Show a fact, a single fact, stop making BS claims and show a single fact.
This is an absurd argument. I've stated many facts. If you have a problem with a particular one, you have to point it out. You can't just quote a few sentences and say, "that's not true", because I don't know which fact it is you are disputing.
squaretrade.com
This wasn't a statistically valid study, it's simply an anecdote. But again, it's a side issue as:
A. I never stated Macs are the most reliable computer. B. It has nothing to do with whether or not Apple is at the trailing edge of technology.
And did you even read it yourself? Apple came in fourth, and the *actual* difference between Apple (4th) and ASUS (1st) was less than 1% (it's impossible to say exactly from that chart). The three year projection (which is the numbers that were actually shown) was not actual data. They don't have error bars, for which 1% would be surprisingly small for such a study. In other words, there's no statistical difference between the first four entries.
But even if you take the study at it's word, Dell is number five, behind Apple. So even if we pretend for the moment that the study has any actual validity, the odds are that the Apple will outlast the Dell.
However, even with all that, I never said the Dell would fail before the Mac would, I said the Mac would be sturdier, and it's all but a mechanical certainty given the unibody enclosure. This is basic engineering. The MacBook body is one solid piece of aluminum, with another solid place screwed to the bottom. These things are phenomenally sturdy. The Dell is a plastic shell around a bunch of discrete metal parts that are screwed and welded together. It would take exceptional manufacturing for the Dell to actually be sturdier than the MacBook Pro.
Honestly, I am almost entirely unfamiliar with pretty much anything Apple sells, so I can't really speak to that. But the phrase "just like any standard Windows install" was what really caught me. To the very best of my knowledge, out of the box, Windows does nothing.
Well, I was being kind, as ragging on Windows has become something of a taboo around here lately. Windows no longer comes with an email client (although I personally wouldn't use that as too much of a slam against Windows, since Windows Live Mail is a free download). Apparently, Windows Calendar is also not included (I'm not exactly making my case here...).
But Windows does have IE, calculator, a clock, notepad, a photo organizer, and a media player, which covers most of the other basics.
On the other hand, Windows does come with MS Paint, which the iPhone does not. A paint program must be downloaded. The leading iPhone paint app runs $1.99. So I guess that's something.
If you're expecting me to annotate my posts with links to wikipedia (!?), etc., I suggest not holding your breath. I really don't care what you believe or disbelieve.
And quoting wikipedia doesn't make you a sage. For example, you quoted the wikipedia page on USB, which you think somehow *proves* Apple didn't replace ADB with USB in 1998, or that Apple wasn't the first major influence in the adoption of USB, or whatever, which is completely wrong.
In other words, quoting wikipedia actually seems to have made you dumber. I'm somewhat baffled, but there it is in black and white.
Apple replaced their own external bus (ADB) with USB with the 1998 introduction of the iMac. At that time, USB was extremely uncommon on PCs.
And you can prove this? Or am I to believe everything you say to be true regardless?As with all your posts, you've just bluntly stated a bunch of random 'facts' you can't prove or refuse to prove and expect others to disprove because truth is too hard for a fanboi to accept.
Which "this"? That Apple replaced their ADB bus with USB in 1998 with the iMac? Or that it was uncommon on PCs at the time?
The first should be easily verified. The second is something you'll just have to look into yourself, if you won't believe me. The fact is that Apple lead the charge to USB, which is ironic given USB being an Intel standard. I don't know when USB became standard on PCs, but I do know that USB mice and keyboards were a Mac thing for years before they became standard on PCs. Apple is commonly regarded as the single most important influence in USB's eventual success.
The same goes for WiFi, although that standard actually did involve Apple very intimately.
Or I was pressed for time with a bad internet. As I stated above, you've chosen vague 'facts'. I call BS. Prove me wrong. I've already with USB since it's not Apples tech
I never said it was. I said Apple led the charge. Not having immediate access to archives of computer ads from '98, I can only tell you what I experienced. Apple adopted the standard early on. Up until about 2000, the vast majority of USB peripherals were for Macs. If you want citations, you'll have to look elsewhere.
It wasn't even until Windows 98 SE that Windows even fully supported USB! You know how when you buy USB enclosures, they come with a disc? That's for Windows 98 and prior. Windows 98 SE didn't arrive until 1999.
No, Mini Displayport is not an open standard
I'm not going to get into semantics of free/open. It's part of displayport, and it's freely available. That's open. But if you'd rather call it free, then fine. Either way, it doesn't affect the distinction that I was making which was that it's not like Memory Stick, which is proprietary to Sony and must be licensed through them.
1. The MBP most likely has a better screen (color, contrast, etc.), is thinner and lighter, has FireWire 800, has a more sturdy build, etc.
Again you can prove this? I already showed in my older link that Apple laptops are barely above Dell, and not the highest of build quality.
Which "this"? As for the build quality, that's not what I wrote, I wrote "more sturdy build", which is by definition the case due to the unibody enclosure. The Alienware laptop would have to be phenomenally expensive to have a more sturdy build without a unibody design.
2. The processor you selected isn't notably faster than the Core2Duo, if at all.
I chose that chip to match the CPU speed. It takes a lot more then CPU speed though to power a computer or we'd still being using 186's clocked at 2.66GHz. TO start with, Core2Duo is a dual core CPU, the i7 is a Quad core. The Core2Duo had an Instruction Set ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_set [wik
You clearly do not speak from experience. The built-in apps cover all the basics (just like any standard Windows install).
Excuse me?
Sincerely, a Linux user
I'm sure Linux covers all the basics as well, some distros more so than others, of course.
Before you get into a pissing match over the apps that are available for the iPhone vs Linux, do realize that you are trying to defend an actual desktop OS against a handheld/portable OS. If you feel the need to get into it, that reveals a significant level of insecurity on your part over the usefulness of your OS.
The fact remains, however, that the iPhone (and iPad) comes with software that covers all the basics, which *is* what you quoted me as saying.
TO start with, USB was developed by Microsoft amongst other company's according to Wikipedia, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus ) so I'm not believing that they led the charge of it.
Apple replaced their own external bus (ADB) with USB with the 1998 introduction of the iMac. At that time, USB was extremely uncommon on PCs.
As for your other 'facts', they would take a lot of effort to figure out the truth, and with you blunt mis-understanding of USB alone makes me lean towards you talking whatever you feel without wanting/needing facts.
In other words, your ignorance is so vast, that you don't feel the need to replace it with actual knowledge?
Since the Core2Duo was made in 2007, and most PC makers use the i3/5/7 chips that are new and faster... that would be considered trailing edge
No, trailing edge is Pentiums, AMDs, Celeron and depending on how you want to look at it, Atom. Core i3/i5/i7 are very recent chips, and Apple *DOES* sell Macs with them. And Core i3 is pretty much irrelevant in this discussion as it's inferior to many Core2 processors (as are some i5's, even, but not to anywhere near the same extent).
What I was saying wasn't that Core2Duo is cutting edge, but that it's not "trailing edge" by any means.
Mini DisplayPort are Apple tech, so thats more of a 'force upon' then leading edge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Display_Port ) Similar to how a lot of Sony products use a Memory Stick. Its not forward thinking, its forward 'pushing'.
Mini displayport is an open standard. Memory Stick is closed. But the point isn't that MDP, or any of the other features I mentioned in that paragraph are something that I expect to be common on other computers, but that these are things that Apple is doing to move their own technology forward, which is anything but being on the trailing edge.
Saving more then $700 for a faster laptop over the Apple... I don't see how your last claim works... But please keep insisting it does:)
A few things to note:
1. The MBP most likely has a better screen (color, contrast, etc.), is thinner and lighter, has FireWire 800, has a more sturdy build, etc.
2. The processor you selected isn't notably faster than the Core2Duo, if at all.
3. You deliberately chose a configuration of the Mac that includes Apple's excessive RAM and HD prices. You're better off to buy them yourself aftermarket.
If you take a standard configuration Mac, match it up feature-wise with a PC, you will generally find the Mac either similarly priced, or even notably cheaper.
Which brings me to another important point, I stated "generally", being able to find a counter-example does not negate that. There are often delays when Intel comes out with a new chip line to when they show up in a Mac. For the iMac, Core i7 came pretty much right away, for the MacBook Pro, there's more of a delay. But once the MacBook gets a Core iX cpu, you can be sure that it won't be the i3 on their high end, and that it will be priced similar to, or less than, most PCs of similar feature parity.
Now, that's not to say that everyone is going to like the features offered by any given Mac model, or that there aren't cases where the Mac costs more, etc. But I'm not arguing about that. For things like customizability, PCs offer far more options, and if that's what you want, go for it! For example, Apple doesn't offer notebooks that are only 1/10th of an inch less thick than *TWO* MacBook Pros stacked atop each other. They also don't offer notebooks that get less than 7 hours of battery life (rated, of course, but Apple's ratings tend to be significantly slower to reality). Regardless, the MacBook Pro will run for *at least* twice as long as the heaver, thicker, and marginally faster (except for GPU) Dell you listed.
Yes, but it's accurate without going into unimportant minutiae.
iPhone OS is OS X in much the same way that Windows Mobile is Windows. They have a lot of the same core bits, but one is a massively scaled down subset of the other.
Not really. Windows Mobile and Windows are similar, but one is not, in any way, just a recompilation of the other, with some minor differences (up until the GUI), whereas iPhone OS and Mac OS X *are* essentially the same codebase, with some differences here and there, until you get to Cocoa/Cocoa Touch.
Even the Mac mini, at $599, is faster than the average PC sold today.
Your citation please
Intel Core2Duo at 2.26-2.53GHz, DDR3 RAM, and integrated GeForce 9400M graphics. Your average PC sold today is significantly slower, as a simple walk through Best Buy or Fry's will show you. Most PCs are Pentiums, Celerons, various AMD's and Atoms. DDR3 is not yet the norm, and most sell with integrated chipsets far slower than the 9400M.
Now, to be sure, Core2Quads are starting to become somewhat common, and they are certainly much faster than the Mac mini's Core2Duo. Core i5's and i7's are also in the market. But there's no way possible that they are sold in sufficient volume to move the average speed of PCs sold today beyond that of the Mac mini.
Vaporware does not mean rumored. Please, learn the meanings of the words you use. If not for the benefit of those who must suffer your ignorance, at least do it for yourself.
And, btw, iPhone OS *IS* OS X. OS X currently comes in two flavors, Mac OS X and iPhone OS.
No, they're not. They run the same kernel, which is called Darwin, not OS X.
Already replied to you on this. The kernel is XNU. Darwin is a complete OS based on XNU. OS X is a family of OS's based on Darwin, which include iPhone OS and Mac OS X.
I'm not sure that pretending that Macs run a phone OS that can't even multitask is a good move, anyway.
iPhone OS can multitask, and it does so very, very well. The UI has a security layer which does not allow background user apps. This is a huge difference, and further shows a fundamental ignorance of the words you use.
If you want to say your phone runs MacOS, good for you, I might as well claim that my PC runs AmigaOS.
I never said it runs Mac OS. Mac OS is a Motorola 68k and PPC OS that is no longer in production. Mac OS X is its successor, and based on Nextstep.
What I *did* say was that the iPhone runs OS X. This is because iPhone OS is a variant of OS X.
As for whether your PC runs AmigaOS, I wouldn't be surprised, as you do seem to have a disturbing obsession for that platform.
The past is the past. Remaining ignorant of the terms you use, and ragging on Apple and their customers will not bring the Amiga back as a consumer platform. We're closing in on 20 years since the demise of Commodore. It's time to let things go.
I never stated that. Your ignorance in the terms you use is phenomenal. Just because you've seen other people use a term like, "logical fallacy", to win an argument does not mean you can just use that term to make yourself correct.
So now you're arguing that if two different operating systems look "exceptionally similar", they're the same OS?
No. As I've already pointed out, the very post you are replying to contains the following words:
"You're right, however, that they aren't the same OS."
iPhone OS and Mac OS X are both variants of OS X.
"OS X" and "Mac OS X" are the same thing, and refer to an OS that uses Darwin as its kernel.
No. Mac OS X is the version of OS X used on the Mac. Additionally, the OS X kernel is not called Darwin, the kernel is XNU. Darwin is OS X without most of the additional frameworks and technologies.
Even if you did define these two different operating systems to be labelled as belonging to an "OS X" family, that's purely an artificial categorisation. I can just as easily define Windows and Linux to belong to some made up OS family. They are still different OSs.
Not at all. Both Mac OS X and iPhone OS share all the same kernel, the same driver system, the same core technologies (CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation, QuickTime (not the player, not the container format, but the subsystem used in OS X), CoreData, etc.) and the same frameworks all the way up to Cocoa, where Mac OS X uses Cocoa and the iPhone uses Cocoa Touch (something else in the post you replied to without bothering to read).
They get mocked, because as soon as Apple release a phone/tablet/fridge, they act as if phones/tablets/fridges are the best thing ever, and make wild claims that no one ever did these things before.
No. They say that *Apple's* phone/tablet/fridge is the best phone/tablet/fridge ever.
And now we get it on a product that isn't even released yet. It's the new Duke Nukem Forever in terms of hype preceding a release.
You really must stop with this vaporware nonsense. You clearly don't understand the words you use. And yes, I realize you didn't actually use the word "vaporware", you just used the single most perfect example of that term. Your intent is to say it without saying it.
iPad isn't vaporware, as actual iPads actually exist. Apple is presently manufacturing them in their final form with the intent of shipping those actual units.
Vaporware is when you talk about what you plan to create, not when you talk about what you've already created and are just waiting on a manufacturing process which is presently underway, and FCC approval which is extraordinarily unlikely to be denied.
But you can't update the OS of an iPad without using iTunes.
Correct, but that's not really a problem for two reasons.
1. Just like any firmware update for any product, you use the tools and methods designed for that product. Having to run iTunes a couple of times a year in order to install an OS upgrade doesn't exactly meet the meaning of being "tethered to a regular computer running iTunes". Not in the way the OP meant.
2. Assuming you really truly can't even stand the idea of running iTunes ever, don't even *have* a computer, or don't run Window or Mac OS X, you can always take it into an Apple Store and they will do it for you.
As for being tethered to iTunes, you can run an iPad completely without using iTunes, including buying apps, syncing contacts and bookmarks, buying music, TV Shows, movies, renting movies, the works.
I was thinking the very same thing, except how can you get your iWork data out of the iPad unless you are tethered to iTunes? Can you email your docs out of the iPad, or is iPad's lack of an SD card slot or some other removable media mean it cannot be truly free of iTunes?
You can email directly from the iPad.
Additionally, although Apple hasn't specified details, you will almost certainly be able to print, send to a network share, send to MobileMe, send to an SD card, and, finally, drag and drop the files in the Finder, all without ever starting iTunes.
Obviously none of that is official, and definitely subject to change, but it's fairly safe to assume that at least some of those will be working at launch, and even if *none* of them are, you'll always be able to email them as a last resort.
No. We mock Apple users because Apple sells them trailing edge technology at a high premium and the fanboys try to portray that as the computing equivalent of a BMW.
You don't just drink the kool-aid, you swim around in it.
"Trailing edge"?
Apple led the charge of SCSI, USB, FireWire, Bluetooth, integrated webcams, multitouch, WiFi, sudden motion sensors, new battery technologies, unibody construction, DVD burners...
Current Macs all have Core2Duo or better. That is by *no* reckoning "trailing edge". Backlit keyboards, mini displayport, magsafe--these, or similar features, are by no means even *remotely* common.
As for a premium, that's absurd. Macs cost similar, and often cheaper, than equivalently specced PCs.
The ironic thing about your post is that all those PCs that you use to show how expensive Macs are, those actually *are* trailing edge. That's why they are so cheap. Apple's aren't expensive because they are overpriced, they only appear expensive because they don't sell low-end hardware--because they *don't* sell trailing edge technology.
No, they are both OS X. They both use all the same frameworks all the way up to, but stopping at Cocoa. Mac OS X uses Cocoa, iPhone OS uses Cocoa Touch. And aside from differences that relate to using multitouch vs a mouse, they are exceptionally similar. The main differences that aren't directly related to a multitouch interface are that Cocoa Touch mandates some of the newer features of Objective C while Cocoa doesn't (for what I hope would be obvious reasons).
You're right, however, that they aren't the same OS. But that should be fairly obvious when I mentioned one is iPhone OS and the other is Mac OS X. But are *both* variants of OS X.
Because those who lined up for Vista didn't then line up for the newest versions of Exchange and SQL Server as well. The reason we mock Apple fans is that many of them buy *EVERY* *BLOODY* *PRODUCT* Apple releases then proceed to call it "groundbreaking" or such crap.
Because there were lines for the iPod touch, the unibody MBPs, the MacBook Air, the 16:9 iMacs, the white unibody MacBooks, Aperture, the iLife '09, iPod nano, iPod shuffle, Magic Mouse...
And you're also quite correct. Many Apple fans have one of each type of Mac, one of each type of keyboard, each iPod (some even have one of each capacity).
No. The reason you mock Apple fans is because it threatens you that people like something that you don't, but don't stay quiet about it. They call something groundbreaking (like the unibody case on the MacBook Pros, the touch interface of the iPhone, the iTunes+iPod combination, etc.) and you either disagree with them or just don't like that they're right, or whatever, so your only response is to pretend they're just a bunch of fucking retards who'll buy anything with an Apple logo, even a kick in the balls.
The funny thing is, that not matter how pathetic you think Apple users are, or how pathetic some may actually be, the people who come up with these childish slams are more pathetic still.
Slashdot Mirror
Uranium and plutonium are toxic, but botox is more toxic and people inject themselves with it on purpose to have less wrinkles. Caffeine is more toxic as well, but people drink it in large amounts. Google the LD50 levels if you do not believe me.
In other words, it's toxic, like I said. Additionally, comparing it to botulinum toxin and caffeine are disingenuous. Botox is delivered in small doses, and it does paralyze muscles and will eventually lead to permanent paralysis. And Caffeine is taken in extremely small doses. Less than a tablespoon will kill you.
Radioactive materials with long half-lives are not necessarily more dangerous.
I never said they were. What I said is that they take a long, long time to become safe.
Nuclear reactors do not explode like a weapon.
I never said they did. In fact, my exact words where:
"Not a nuclear bomb explosion, but a violent explosion that bathes anyone nearby with lethal doses of radiation."
Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. The meltdown caused steam explosions as pipe pressure went up and the graphite ignited.
Quoting myself again:
"Temperature also must be diligently controlled, as these reactors create a *lot* of heat (deliberately, as that's how they operate). If the flow of coolant (water) is blocked before the reactor is shut down, fire and explosion are possible (c.f. Chernobyl)."
Depending on reactor design, a nuclear reactor will not have a rampant (positive feedback loop) meltdown if coolant escapes the core.
Interesting, but unclear. If a power plant of the type used in the US were to remain online (i.e., the rods all in place) with zero coolant flow (by coolant, I'm referring to the water that is turned into steam, just in case there's also some auxiliary system that is called coolant in such a system) the heat does not build up causing either a fire or an explosion? I mean, without any safety mechanism being triggered, such as rods being removed or lead shielding put in place between them?
If so, the question arises how such a system could work, unless the reactors don't turn water into steam to run turbines. Otherwise, it would seem the system would become an oven, resulting in fire and/or explosion.
A nuclear power plant has a high EROEI ratio. Especially when the uranium is enriched using now commonplace gas centrifuge technology. Estimated energy payback period is between 3 and 5 months. Not years, let alone decades.
They stated that their method is to convert money into energy as a way of determining energy cost. They didn't detail their method, stating that it was from a third party, and it's very common to get this wrong.
But really, there are two matters to consider (neither of which does that report actually address):
1. Energy deficit. Counting every joule of energy that goes into a nuclear plant, including mining of materials (not just fuel), transportation, construction, personnel, etc., how long will it take before the plant produces its first net joule of energy?
2. Monetary deficit. Ironically, while they did address money by converting it into energy, they didn't go into this directly. What I mean by this is, taking the dollars that go into it, how long does it take before the price per watt is equal to or less than the price per watt of coal, hydro or even things like wind and solar.
They do touch on efficiency, and show that nuclear isn't actually more efficient than other systems. Additionally, things like solar are improving by the year.
As I already stated, I'm not against nuclear. On the contrary. What I'm against is doing it poorly. I *KNOW* it can be done right. The problem is, you cannot assume it will be done 100% right. You have to assume a significant amount of things being done poorly, or just not-so-bad. In such a situatio
Apple is in complete control of this situation. They control who gets the contracts to build the goods.
No, they aren't. There are two specific ways in which they aren't.
1. They cannot, I repeat, CAN NOT, control third parties. They can make demands and threats, but they can not control them.
2. They can only choose from available third parties. If they cancel a contract with everyone who violates some rule, and everyone violates some rule, they can not build their product. Alternatively, if they find someone who does not break this rule, but costs significantly more than someone who does, they can make their product, but cannot sell it.
It's all about the profits, and how to maximize them most efficiently. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, it's not. If it was just about profits, they wouldn't have a code of conduct at all.
Every business in existence is run by humans. Humans are not purely rational beings. The idea that we are, and thus always seek to maximize profits also implies that profits are always rational. Now that's *two* flaws with your assertion about profits.
So, these people make choices. *Some* choices are about maximizing profits. *Some* choices are about making the product they wish to see exist. *Some* choices are based on the morals and politics of the people involved. *Some* choices are based on nothing other than whim. *Some* choices are based on the idea of staying out of jail, or being able to sleep at night, or not having your family hate you, etc.
In other words, the notion that all choices are based on profits is absurd.
Yeah, anything that has to do with fluctuating prices, Apple tends to just pick a set price and stay with it for a while before updating it. Foreign stores, RAM and HD add-ons, and models that haven't been updated for a while, are all affected by this.
On the topic of RGBLED, Apple's LED gets 90% gamut coverage (vs. the 45%-75% gamut of other technologies). I assume the Dell RGBLED is closer to, if not actually at, 100%. I just wanted to point out that Apple's LED backlighting is better than what a lot of people might be thinking when comparing with other white LEDs.
Nuclear is now safe. See Japan and France for more information.
Nuclear is *never* safe. What it is, now, is manageable, which is a different thing.
What I mean by this is that uranium, plutonium, thorium, etc., are all radioactive with half-lives of thousands to billions of years. No matter *what* you do, those elements are unsafe in any amount useful for a power plant. Uranium and plutonium are also toxic metals.
There is also the issue that if the rods get too close to each other, they reach critical mass and explode. Not a nuclear bomb explosion, but a violent explosion that bathes anyone nearby with lethal doses of radiation. Temperature also must be diligently controlled, as these reactors create a *lot* of heat (deliberately, as that's how they operate). If the flow of coolant (water) is blocked before the reactor is shut down, fire and explosion are possible (c.f. Chernobyl).
While the explosion is not on the order of even a Hiroshima sized bomb, the radiation fallout is actually greater.
Then there's the problem of waste. Nuclear waste is not only toxic, but remains radioactive for tens of billions of years. So you have to plan for *that* as well.
So, while these issues *are* all manageable, you have to really, really take caution and responsibility to minimize the risks. The first thing you have to accept is any one of those potential disasters can come to pass. There's absolutely *no* way to completely eliminate them, and it has to be assumed that anything that can go wrong, eventually will go wrong. So this becomes a risk-benefit analysis. One which I believe favors nuclear power.
But in order to be done right, I can't trust private businesses. Not without *severe* government oversight. This is because profit-seeking businesses can all but universally be relied on to to cut corners to save on costs. At least, this is true for American-style business.
Finally, in terms of net-positive energy production and cost savings, in order to run a power plant safely, it will take decades before a nuclear plant generates more energy than it took to produce and maintain it. So one would have to have confidence that the plant will still be around by then, otherwise it has become both an energy and a money sink.
I'm *not* against nuclear power. I *very much* like the idea of it. But what I'm not convinced of is our ability (at least in terms of for-profit businesses) to do it safely.
It's amazing that the mainstream public can be this economically retarded
Hmm, I'll say. But I don't think we're talking about the same group of people...
but it isn't very surprising given that their education is controlled by the government
Tinfoil hat time, here we go!
the very entity that benefits from these sorts of regulations.
The government benefits every time a child doesn't work, every time a pill doesn't kill someone, every time a student becomes a doctor or a scientist, every time a factory recalls tons of e. coli tainted beef... Well, in a sense, that's actually true, in the US, since We The People *are* the government.
Individuals, including children, choose to work in "sweatshops"
Bullshit. No child "choses" to work in a sweatshop. They are forced to by their parents, or by circumstances, but in no way do they think, "boy, I sure wish I could work 15 hours a day and get 2 pee breaks!"
Simply outlawing free market in labor will not make schools, hospitals, and personal wealth rain from the sky!
No. "Socialism" does this. The free market has never, and will never, provide schools, hospitals and personal wealth to reach the masses. A truly free market school system would leave the poor uneducated. A truly free market health system would leave the poor sick.
As for child labor, no free market on the planet would *ever* eliminate it. The only way to eliminate child labor is to outlaw it outright. This is because if it's legal, some company is going to engage in it, and some children are going to be forced by their parents or by circumstances into it.
Free market economies are able to go from child labor and sweatshops to banks and skyscrapers in just a couple of generations, while the "well-intentioned" socialist cesspools remain poor except for the handouts of others (often too through government force).
No free market has ever left child labor behind. You *are* correct that free markets will lead to banks and skyscrapers, however. You are wrong that socialism leads to poor nations. What you are thinking of is communism.
The trick is to gain the benefits of capitalism (banks, skyscrapers, etc.) while avoiding its negatives (exclusion of poor people, child labor, etc.). The way to do that is with laws (outlawing certain practices) and socialism (free education and health care) *AND* capitalism (skyscrapers and banks).
You do realize that they did nothing to these suppliers?
Wrong.
Do you also realize that Dick Durbin is all over them about this right now, hence the audit?
Them, and 29 other high profile companies.
It has been almost 4 years since they started this 'code of conduct' BS.
Wait, I thought you said they just started this right now in response to Durbin?
Yet the violations continue..... think about that for a minute.
Of course they do. It's China. But they don't continue with Apple's consent. It's like saying, "there are laws against murder, yet murders still continue... think about that for a minute."
They audit, it gets Durbin off of them.. he is happy.
Again, they've been at this for four years. It's very clever of them to have allocated precious resources to their time machine to go back to 2006 and start this process, all to appease one Senator.
Business goes on as usual.... what has Apple actually DONE here but make some baseless threats, the same ones they made back in 2006.
You're absolutely correct. A Code of Conduct is an unassailable mechanism that instantly forces all who are subject to it into compliance. It's truly magical that way.
Here's the thing. This Code of Conduct applies to other companies. Sure they may agree to it, but that doesn't mean they are going to follow it. That's why Apple audits them, and takes action as necessary. But don't forget, this are independent third parties, who operate in a different nation with a different culture than Apple's, and are not going to change their standard practices just on someone else's say so. It's going to have to harm them financially (or legally, but in China, we can pretty much ignore that aspect regarding the current topic). Apple can only do so much, and what they *can* do, they are doing *something*, which is far more than can be said for their competitors.
It's ironic that Apple is being taken to task for doing the right thing and looking into the human rights practices of their suppliers, instead of turning a blind eye like everyone else. It's like blaming a doctor for finding cancer, because he actually performs the tests, and giving the doctors who don't a pass...
except you know, they dont charge any more than anyone else. There IS NO APPLE TAX anymore. Stop comparing POS computers to a standard Apple configuration and actually you know configure a Dell to match a Apple. You WILL be surprised.
And you *still* won't get the Dell to match the Mac in terms of screen quality, battery life, thinness, sturdiness, etc.
But I guess those things are simply the "aesthetics" and "form over function" that people keep trying to pretend are unimportant or something...
This is just incredible. I tried to do the price comparisons, and each time Apple comes as the looser. The only space of time when it's Apple's products are equally priced are right at the product launch. But there is no way to compare Apples to Dells in 1-to-1 way. There are very specific differences.
If you take a standard config Mac, then build a similar PC (as close as possible, including features you may not want, like FireWire and Bluetooth) and also make certain that the components are of similar quality (such as IPS LED displays on the iMac, and the high gamut, good viewing angle of the MacBook Pros), then you will find that the Mac is usually around the same, and sometimes cheaper.
You are correct that the prices drift over time, but I've never said this isn't the case. Apple updates their products more cyclically, while PC makers have various models which are all changing almost stochastically. I've already also stated that if choice is your thing, or if you just really don't want the feature sets that Apple offers, then get a PC. There's nothing wrong with buying the thing that best suits your needs and wants.
For the price of a 13" MacBook you can get an quad-core i7 system with 15" display, dedicated graphics, more ram and more disk space at a price that is $100 less.
Four things (which I've already stated):
1. The MacBook Pro is pending a refresh to Core i7. Now is a time where the prices/features diverge the greatest.
2. It's not likely that the components like the quality of the screen, build of the case, time on battery power, etc., match that of the MacBook Pro.
3. If you create a build based on upgraded HD and RAM on the MBP, you will have a greater divergence in prices.
4. I said "generally". There will *always* be cases where some other PC will be cheaper than a similar Mac, and vice versa. My point isn't that Macs are always cheaper or anything, just that their prices are very much similar to equivalent PCs.
The idea that Macs are overpriced are based on two misconceptions.
1. Apple doesn't sell low-end computers. There are no $300 Macs. This isn't because the Mac mini is just a $300 PC priced at $600. It's because Apple doesn't sell a Mac with the crappy parts of the $300 PC.
2. DIYers can cherry pick components and build a PC for less. This actually ignores things like size and sound. Also, there are some Macs that can't even be built for less than Apple sells them for. For example, for a Mac Pro, by the time you buy the processors, you barely have a few hundred dollars left for RAM, case, MB, HD, video, etc.
"slower to reality" - what the ....?!?!?!?!?!
I already corrected this, thinking one word and typing another. I suspect you are intelligent enough to deduce what I was thinking.
In short, you've made everything up
This is absurd.
You mention that somehow free is open. Free isn't open. Free means you don't pay. Open means you can tinker with it.
Open has many meanings. It also means it's open for anyone to use. Since *I* used the word open, you can't say that *my* choice in meaning is wrong if it's valid (and not just technically, but obscurely, but in a common use of the word).
But like I pointed out, it doesn't matter what word you want to use for it, the specific feature I was pointing out is the thing that differentiates it from Memory Stick.
I mentioned that the Alienwares comparison was using an i7, you keep mis-reading it as an i3 to divert attention.
No, your link didn't bring me to the build you mentioned. I looked at it and saw Core i3 selected. It wasn't meant to be a diversion, and it doesn't change the fact that the discrepancy is highly affected by the fact that the MBP hasn't yet been updated to Core i5's and i7's. They will come. And I've never shied away from the fact that there are times that the build is going to be a few months behind the cutting edge.
Which brings me back to my original point, which is that Apple is *by no means* on the trailing edge.
You wanted to compare the Core2, even though it was pointed out that Apple sells a Core2Duo.
Apple sells Core2Quads, Core2Duos, Core i5's, Core i7's, and Xeons. But my point wasn't that MacBooks use them (they will, so it's just a temporal issue, not a technological issue), my point was to point out that just being a Core i3 or i5 doesn't mean it's automatically faster than the Core2 series. This is when I thought you were saying the Core i3 Alienware was faster than the MBP. It may be, but not by much.
But look at that list of processors I mentioned that Apple uses. Which of those are on the trailing edge of technology? Trailing edge is Pentiums, Celerons, Atoms, CoreDuo, most AMDs, and a handful of other, even slower, processors.
You ask " if there's anything specific you'd like me to clarify, or cite for you, do ask" Ok. In simple, 5 year old understandable english. Show a fact, a single fact, stop making BS claims and show a single fact.
This is an absurd argument. I've stated many facts. If you have a problem with a particular one, you have to point it out. You can't just quote a few sentences and say, "that's not true", because I don't know which fact it is you are disputing.
squaretrade.com
This wasn't a statistically valid study, it's simply an anecdote. But again, it's a side issue as:
A. I never stated Macs are the most reliable computer.
B. It has nothing to do with whether or not Apple is at the trailing edge of technology.
And did you even read it yourself? Apple came in fourth, and the *actual* difference between Apple (4th) and ASUS (1st) was less than 1% (it's impossible to say exactly from that chart). The three year projection (which is the numbers that were actually shown) was not actual data. They don't have error bars, for which 1% would be surprisingly small for such a study. In other words, there's no statistical difference between the first four entries.
But even if you take the study at it's word, Dell is number five, behind Apple. So even if we pretend for the moment that the study has any actual validity, the odds are that the Apple will outlast the Dell.
However, even with all that, I never said the Dell would fail before the Mac would, I said the Mac would be sturdier, and it's all but a mechanical certainty given the unibody enclosure. This is basic engineering. The MacBook body is one solid piece of aluminum, with another solid place screwed to the bottom. These things are phenomenally sturdy. The Dell is a plastic shell around a bunch of discrete metal parts that are screwed and welded together. It would take exceptional manufacturing for the Dell to actually be sturdier than the MacBook Pro.
Honestly, I am almost entirely unfamiliar with pretty much anything Apple sells, so I can't really speak to that. But the phrase "just like any standard Windows install" was what really caught me. To the very best of my knowledge, out of the box, Windows does nothing.
Well, I was being kind, as ragging on Windows has become something of a taboo around here lately. Windows no longer comes with an email client (although I personally wouldn't use that as too much of a slam against Windows, since Windows Live Mail is a free download). Apparently, Windows Calendar is also not included (I'm not exactly making my case here...).
But Windows does have IE, calculator, a clock, notepad, a photo organizer, and a media player, which covers most of the other basics.
On the other hand, Windows does come with MS Paint, which the iPhone does not. A paint program must be downloaded. The leading iPhone paint app runs $1.99. So I guess that's something.
If you're expecting me to annotate my posts with links to wikipedia (!?), etc., I suggest not holding your breath. I really don't care what you believe or disbelieve.
And quoting wikipedia doesn't make you a sage. For example, you quoted the wikipedia page on USB, which you think somehow *proves* Apple didn't replace ADB with USB in 1998, or that Apple wasn't the first major influence in the adoption of USB, or whatever, which is completely wrong.
In other words, quoting wikipedia actually seems to have made you dumber. I'm somewhat baffled, but there it is in black and white.
Apple replaced their own external bus (ADB) with USB with the 1998 introduction of the iMac. At that time, USB was extremely uncommon on PCs.
And you can prove this? Or am I to believe everything you say to be true regardless?As with all your posts, you've just bluntly stated a bunch of random 'facts' you can't prove or refuse to prove and expect others to disprove because truth is too hard for a fanboi to accept.
Which "this"? That Apple replaced their ADB bus with USB in 1998 with the iMac? Or that it was uncommon on PCs at the time?
The first should be easily verified. The second is something you'll just have to look into yourself, if you won't believe me. The fact is that Apple lead the charge to USB, which is ironic given USB being an Intel standard. I don't know when USB became standard on PCs, but I do know that USB mice and keyboards were a Mac thing for years before they became standard on PCs. Apple is commonly regarded as the single most important influence in USB's eventual success.
The same goes for WiFi, although that standard actually did involve Apple very intimately.
Or I was pressed for time with a bad internet. As I stated above, you've chosen vague 'facts'. I call BS. Prove me wrong. I've already with USB since it's not Apples tech
I never said it was. I said Apple led the charge. Not having immediate access to archives of computer ads from '98, I can only tell you what I experienced. Apple adopted the standard early on. Up until about 2000, the vast majority of USB peripherals were for Macs. If you want citations, you'll have to look elsewhere.
It wasn't even until Windows 98 SE that Windows even fully supported USB! You know how when you buy USB enclosures, they come with a disc? That's for Windows 98 and prior. Windows 98 SE didn't arrive until 1999.
No, Mini Displayport is not an open standard
I'm not going to get into semantics of free/open. It's part of displayport, and it's freely available. That's open. But if you'd rather call it free, then fine. Either way, it doesn't affect the distinction that I was making which was that it's not like Memory Stick, which is proprietary to Sony and must be licensed through them.
1. The MBP most likely has a better screen (color, contrast, etc.), is thinner and lighter, has FireWire 800, has a more sturdy build, etc.
Again you can prove this? I already showed in my older link that Apple laptops are barely above Dell, and not the highest of build quality.
Which "this"? As for the build quality, that's not what I wrote, I wrote "more sturdy build", which is by definition the case due to the unibody enclosure. The Alienware laptop would have to be phenomenally expensive to have a more sturdy build without a unibody design.
2. The processor you selected isn't notably faster than the Core2Duo, if at all.
I chose that chip to match the CPU speed. It takes a lot more then CPU speed though to power a computer or we'd still being using 186's clocked at 2.66GHz. TO start with, Core2Duo is a dual core CPU, the i7 is a Quad core. The Core2Duo had an Instruction Set ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_set [wik
I have no idea how I wrote this:
(rated, of course, but Apple's ratings tend to be significantly slower to reality)
But I meant "close to reality".
You clearly do not speak from experience. The built-in apps cover all the basics (just like any standard Windows install).
Excuse me?
Sincerely,
a Linux user
I'm sure Linux covers all the basics as well, some distros more so than others, of course.
Before you get into a pissing match over the apps that are available for the iPhone vs Linux, do realize that you are trying to defend an actual desktop OS against a handheld/portable OS. If you feel the need to get into it, that reveals a significant level of insecurity on your part over the usefulness of your OS.
The fact remains, however, that the iPhone (and iPad) comes with software that covers all the basics, which *is* what you quoted me as saying.
TO start with, USB was developed by Microsoft amongst other company's according to Wikipedia, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus ) so I'm not believing that they led the charge of it.
Apple replaced their own external bus (ADB) with USB with the 1998 introduction of the iMac. At that time, USB was extremely uncommon on PCs.
As for your other 'facts', they would take a lot of effort to figure out the truth, and with you blunt mis-understanding of USB alone makes me lean towards you talking whatever you feel without wanting/needing facts.
In other words, your ignorance is so vast, that you don't feel the need to replace it with actual knowledge?
Since the Core2Duo was made in 2007, and most PC makers use the i3/5/7 chips that are new and faster... that would be considered trailing edge
No, trailing edge is Pentiums, AMDs, Celeron and depending on how you want to look at it, Atom. Core i3/i5/i7 are very recent chips, and Apple *DOES* sell Macs with them. And Core i3 is pretty much irrelevant in this discussion as it's inferior to many Core2 processors (as are some i5's, even, but not to anywhere near the same extent).
What I was saying wasn't that Core2Duo is cutting edge, but that it's not "trailing edge" by any means.
Mini DisplayPort are Apple tech, so thats more of a 'force upon' then leading edge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Display_Port ) Similar to how a lot of Sony products use a Memory Stick. Its not forward thinking, its forward 'pushing'.
Mini displayport is an open standard. Memory Stick is closed. But the point isn't that MDP, or any of the other features I mentioned in that paragraph are something that I expect to be common on other computers, but that these are things that Apple is doing to move their own technology forward, which is anything but being on the trailing edge.
Saving more then $700 for a faster laptop over the Apple... I don't see how your last claim works... But please keep insisting it does :)
A few things to note:
1. The MBP most likely has a better screen (color, contrast, etc.), is thinner and lighter, has FireWire 800, has a more sturdy build, etc.
2. The processor you selected isn't notably faster than the Core2Duo, if at all.
3. You deliberately chose a configuration of the Mac that includes Apple's excessive RAM and HD prices. You're better off to buy them yourself aftermarket.
If you take a standard configuration Mac, match it up feature-wise with a PC, you will generally find the Mac either similarly priced, or even notably cheaper.
Which brings me to another important point, I stated "generally", being able to find a counter-example does not negate that. There are often delays when Intel comes out with a new chip line to when they show up in a Mac. For the iMac, Core i7 came pretty much right away, for the MacBook Pro, there's more of a delay. But once the MacBook gets a Core iX cpu, you can be sure that it won't be the i3 on their high end, and that it will be priced similar to, or less than, most PCs of similar feature parity.
Now, that's not to say that everyone is going to like the features offered by any given Mac model, or that there aren't cases where the Mac costs more, etc. But I'm not arguing about that. For things like customizability, PCs offer far more options, and if that's what you want, go for it! For example, Apple doesn't offer notebooks that are only 1/10th of an inch less thick than *TWO* MacBook Pros stacked atop each other. They also don't offer notebooks that get less than 7 hours of battery life (rated, of course, but Apple's ratings tend to be significantly slower to reality). Regardless, the MacBook Pro will run for *at least* twice as long as the heaver, thicker, and marginally faster (except for GPU) Dell you listed.
That's a bit of an oversimplification.
Yes, but it's accurate without going into unimportant minutiae.
iPhone OS is OS X in much the same way that Windows Mobile is Windows. They have a lot of the same core bits, but one is a massively scaled down subset of the other.
Not really. Windows Mobile and Windows are similar, but one is not, in any way, just a recompilation of the other, with some minor differences (up until the GUI), whereas iPhone OS and Mac OS X *are* essentially the same codebase, with some differences here and there, until you get to Cocoa/Cocoa Touch.
Even the Mac mini, at $599, is faster than the average PC sold today.
Your citation please
Intel Core2Duo at 2.26-2.53GHz, DDR3 RAM, and integrated GeForce 9400M graphics. Your average PC sold today is significantly slower, as a simple walk through Best Buy or Fry's will show you. Most PCs are Pentiums, Celerons, various AMD's and Atoms. DDR3 is not yet the norm, and most sell with integrated chipsets far slower than the 9400M.
Now, to be sure, Core2Quads are starting to become somewhat common, and they are certainly much faster than the Mac mini's Core2Duo. Core i5's and i7's are also in the market. But there's no way possible that they are sold in sufficient volume to move the average speed of PCs sold today beyond that of the Mac mini.
There have been rumours of an Apple tablet for at least 5 years (as vaporware goes, it's pretty high up on the list), including that it would be a "Mac".
Vaporware does not mean rumored. Please, learn the meanings of the words you use. If not for the benefit of those who must suffer your ignorance, at least do it for yourself.
And, btw, iPhone OS *IS* OS X. OS X currently comes in two flavors, Mac OS X and iPhone OS.
No, they're not. They run the same kernel, which is called Darwin, not OS X.
Already replied to you on this. The kernel is XNU. Darwin is a complete OS based on XNU. OS X is a family of OS's based on Darwin, which include iPhone OS and Mac OS X.
I'm not sure that pretending that Macs run a phone OS that can't even multitask is a good move, anyway.
iPhone OS can multitask, and it does so very, very well. The UI has a security layer which does not allow background user apps. This is a huge difference, and further shows a fundamental ignorance of the words you use.
If you want to say your phone runs MacOS, good for you, I might as well claim that my PC runs AmigaOS.
I never said it runs Mac OS. Mac OS is a Motorola 68k and PPC OS that is no longer in production. Mac OS X is its successor, and based on Nextstep.
What I *did* say was that the iPhone runs OS X. This is because iPhone OS is a variant of OS X.
As for whether your PC runs AmigaOS, I wouldn't be surprised, as you do seem to have a disturbing obsession for that platform.
The past is the past. Remaining ignorant of the terms you use, and ragging on Apple and their customers will not bring the Amiga back as a consumer platform. We're closing in on 20 years since the demise of Commodore. It's time to let things go.
"A uses X, and B uses X, therefore A is B".
Spot the logical fallacy.
I never stated that. Your ignorance in the terms you use is phenomenal. Just because you've seen other people use a term like, "logical fallacy", to win an argument does not mean you can just use that term to make yourself correct.
So now you're arguing that if two different operating systems look "exceptionally similar", they're the same OS?
No. As I've already pointed out, the very post you are replying to contains the following words:
"You're right, however, that they aren't the same OS."
iPhone OS and Mac OS X are both variants of OS X.
"OS X" and "Mac OS X" are the same thing, and refer to an OS that uses Darwin as its kernel.
No. Mac OS X is the version of OS X used on the Mac. Additionally, the OS X kernel is not called Darwin, the kernel is XNU. Darwin is OS X without most of the additional frameworks and technologies.
Even if you did define these two different operating systems to be labelled as belonging to an "OS X" family, that's purely an artificial categorisation. I can just as easily define Windows and Linux to belong to some made up OS family. They are still different OSs.
Not at all. Both Mac OS X and iPhone OS share all the same kernel, the same driver system, the same core technologies (CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation, QuickTime (not the player, not the container format, but the subsystem used in OS X), CoreData, etc.) and the same frameworks all the way up to Cocoa, where Mac OS X uses Cocoa and the iPhone uses Cocoa Touch (something else in the post you replied to without bothering to read).
They get mocked, because as soon as Apple release a phone/tablet/fridge, they act as if phones/tablets/fridges are the best thing ever, and make wild claims that no one ever did these things before.
No. They say that *Apple's* phone/tablet/fridge is the best phone/tablet/fridge ever.
And now we get it on a product that isn't even released yet. It's the new Duke Nukem Forever in terms of hype preceding a release.
You really must stop with this vaporware nonsense. You clearly don't understand the words you use. And yes, I realize you didn't actually use the word "vaporware", you just used the single most perfect example of that term. Your intent is to say it without saying it.
iPad isn't vaporware, as actual iPads actually exist. Apple is presently manufacturing them in their final form with the intent of shipping those actual units.
Vaporware is when you talk about what you plan to create, not when you talk about what you've already created and are just waiting on a manufacturing process which is presently underway, and FCC approval which is extraordinarily unlikely to be denied.
But you can't update the OS of an iPad without using iTunes.
Correct, but that's not really a problem for two reasons.
1. Just like any firmware update for any product, you use the tools and methods designed for that product. Having to run iTunes a couple of times a year in order to install an OS upgrade doesn't exactly meet the meaning of being "tethered to a regular computer running iTunes". Not in the way the OP meant.
2. Assuming you really truly can't even stand the idea of running iTunes ever, don't even *have* a computer, or don't run Window or Mac OS X, you can always take it into an Apple Store and they will do it for you.
As for being tethered to iTunes, you can run an iPad completely without using iTunes, including buying apps, syncing contacts and bookmarks, buying music, TV Shows, movies, renting movies, the works.
I was thinking the very same thing, except how can you get your iWork data out of the iPad unless you are tethered to iTunes? Can you email your docs out of the iPad, or is iPad's lack of an SD card slot or some other removable media mean it cannot be truly free of iTunes?
You can email directly from the iPad.
Additionally, although Apple hasn't specified details, you will almost certainly be able to print, send to a network share, send to MobileMe, send to an SD card, and, finally, drag and drop the files in the Finder, all without ever starting iTunes.
Obviously none of that is official, and definitely subject to change, but it's fairly safe to assume that at least some of those will be working at launch, and even if *none* of them are, you'll always be able to email them as a last resort.
No. We mock Apple users because Apple sells them trailing edge technology at a high premium and the fanboys try to portray that as the computing equivalent of a BMW.
You don't just drink the kool-aid, you swim around in it.
"Trailing edge"?
Apple led the charge of SCSI, USB, FireWire, Bluetooth, integrated webcams, multitouch, WiFi, sudden motion sensors, new battery technologies, unibody construction, DVD burners...
Current Macs all have Core2Duo or better. That is by *no* reckoning "trailing edge". Backlit keyboards, mini displayport, magsafe--these, or similar features, are by no means even *remotely* common.
As for a premium, that's absurd. Macs cost similar, and often cheaper, than equivalently specced PCs.
The ironic thing about your post is that all those PCs that you use to show how expensive Macs are, those actually *are* trailing edge. That's why they are so cheap. Apple's aren't expensive because they are overpriced, they only appear expensive because they don't sell low-end hardware--because they *don't* sell trailing edge technology.
Nobody gives a shit about semantics. To the end user they are not the same OS because they can't/don't/won't run the same applications.
Funny, I'm absolutely *certain* that in the post you replied to I wrote:
"You're right, however, that they aren't the same OS."
No, they are both OS X. They both use all the same frameworks all the way up to, but stopping at Cocoa. Mac OS X uses Cocoa, iPhone OS uses Cocoa Touch. And aside from differences that relate to using multitouch vs a mouse, they are exceptionally similar. The main differences that aren't directly related to a multitouch interface are that Cocoa Touch mandates some of the newer features of Objective C while Cocoa doesn't (for what I hope would be obvious reasons).
You're right, however, that they aren't the same OS. But that should be fairly obvious when I mentioned one is iPhone OS and the other is Mac OS X. But are *both* variants of OS X.
Because those who lined up for Vista didn't then line up for the newest versions of Exchange and SQL Server as well. The reason we mock Apple fans is that many of them buy *EVERY* *BLOODY* *PRODUCT* Apple releases then proceed to call it "groundbreaking" or such crap.
Because there were lines for the iPod touch, the unibody MBPs, the MacBook Air, the 16:9 iMacs, the white unibody MacBooks, Aperture, the iLife '09, iPod nano, iPod shuffle, Magic Mouse...
And you're also quite correct. Many Apple fans have one of each type of Mac, one of each type of keyboard, each iPod (some even have one of each capacity).
No. The reason you mock Apple fans is because it threatens you that people like something that you don't, but don't stay quiet about it. They call something groundbreaking (like the unibody case on the MacBook Pros, the touch interface of the iPhone, the iTunes+iPod combination, etc.) and you either disagree with them or just don't like that they're right, or whatever, so your only response is to pretend they're just a bunch of fucking retards who'll buy anything with an Apple logo, even a kick in the balls.
The funny thing is, that not matter how pathetic you think Apple users are, or how pathetic some may actually be, the people who come up with these childish slams are more pathetic still.